For my final research paper I have chosen the following question: How would you define knowledge? Do you agree with Descartes that the mind is the primary source of knowledge (rationalism) or with Hume that sense perception is the primary source of knowledge (empiricism). I have chosen to defend Descartes based on three main reasons. One reason is that Descartes believes in the mind and how it can think and obtain knowledge by us thinking. This contradicts Hume's belief that our senses determine our knowledge intake. Secondly, is that Descartes believes in God, who he thinks has created the world. This is better because according to Hume, God doesn't exist. Finally, Descartes will not believe anything which he cannot prove exists, unless he sees otherwise in the world. Whereas for Hume, what you see is what you get.
The first example that Descartes better defines knowledge is that he references the mind and body as separate. This separation, referenced as Dualism in the BBC documentary The Secret You, is "A separation of the mind and body in which Descartes says we can do without" (Marcus du Sautoy). He says this because he believes that the mind is a substance of itself. "The essence or nature of a mind, Descartes says, is to think. If a thing does not think, it is not a mind. In terms of his ontology, the mind is a (finite) substance, and thought or thinking is its attribute" (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The previous quotes state that the mind's basic purpose is to think and that the body simply houses this thinking mind. Secondly, Descartes believes that he exists; hence I think therefore I exist. After Descartes determines that he does exist, he ponders the question about how he thinks. He determines that God has enabled him to exist by using his mind. No matter how hard he tries, Descartes cannot stop himself from thinking that this "God" is some kind of a deceiver.
